pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) (08/24/90)
From: pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) With the large build up of American Forces in the Gulf region, I would be surprised that you would not find elements of the Special Ops community brought in. During the period of when the U.S. Navy was escorting tankers in the gulf, we saw SEAL's boarding Iranian vessels. Considering the amount of media attention that the gulf crisis is getting, I would think they are some what removed, and playing a low profile. Any opinions on the subject? Greg Pierce uunet!bcstec!pierce
bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) (08/28/90)
From: bruce@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Bruce Donaldson) Instead of firing upon tankers etc. trying to break the "blockade" and possibly risking another oil spill disaster; why not have special forces attempt to capture the ship ? Landing a helicopter on such huge, slow moving platforms could not be too difficult as they have no counter measures. Once the armed troops are on board they face unarmed (and presumable militarily untrained) personel. The only real danger would be if the crew tried to steer the ship into something (like another ship or oil platform). Those ships need A LOT of room to maneouvre. Comments ? NOTE: This is just an interested onlookers opinion, and has nothing to do with any official policies etc .etc.
tgg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner) (09/13/90)
From: tgg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner) |Can the Brits on the mailing list tell me if they've heard anything about SAS |teams moving to staging locations in the Middle East? If we heard anything it would be disinformation. Hell, they keep the names of people in the SAS/SBS secret...
bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au (09/13/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au In article <1990Sep11.024507.14550@cbnews.att.com>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: > From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) > In article <1990Sep6.154708.26061@cbnews.att.com>, smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes: > >>There have been several reports in the papers about U.S. forces >>advising and supplying Kuwaiti resistance forces. I doubt there >>would be any direct combat involvement by Americans until the >>decision had been made to attack, and the timetable set -- the >>adverse publicity risks are too high. > > I beg to differ. I would be willing to bet that we do have some people in > Kuwait on the ground working to locate and smuggle out as many U.S. citizens > as can be found. While not a "direct combat involvement," it comes pretty > close to earning hazardous duty pay. > > Can the Brits on the mailing list tell me if they've heard anything about SAS > teams moving to staging locations in the Middle East? I would be extremely surprised to find that they had heard anything. The British SAS is _extremely_ secretive about everything to with their movements, stationing and members. In fact they are so secretive that they refuse to allow photographers to take photos showing their faces (if you look in any book about the British SAS you will see photos only of their backs or with the faces blanked out). In the Falklands the only way reporters were able to identify the SAS was by their almost exclusive use of the M16 rifle and their having been issued better quality waterproof clothing than the normal soldiers taking part in the campiagn. However even keeping that in mind I would be very surprised that the SAS had not already been moved into position (along with elements of the SBS as well as the Gulf would be ideally suited to both units' style of operations). Most of the advisors supplied by British companies to Oman and the UAE are ex-SAS and the SAS has had a long history of a presence in Oman. So I would say almost definitly that there would be an SAS squadron on the ground most probably by now. Most probably it would be the squadron dedicated to long range patrol operations and would be operating deep into the desert. Their role, unlike that of most US special forces, is almost purely that of deep penetration reconniassance, something particularly useful in this situation (while they do have a secondary role of operating in the classic "commando" style they are primarily trained to be recce specialists first and raiders second). I would imagine they would be primarily used to find and mark possible invasion routes (for both sides) and to act as one of the main sources of human intelligence along the border in the more remote regions. In addition they could also already be inside Kuwait and Iraq, in mufti, acting as advisors and spying out the lay of the land (which is what they did in Argentina itself during the Falklands campiagn). Another role they could be used for could be "assasination" of certain select targets (eg commanders and certain personalities). They have carried out similar mission in Northern Ireland, in Aden, Oman and Malaya. So it is something not to be ruled out. Brian Ross
frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) (09/14/90)
From: frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) Within a week of the 2nd August invasion it seems that some SBS and possibly SAS too were in the area. This was about the same time that some reports of SEAL units in theatre made it into the press. Considering the news management the US is achieving in the Gulf - for instance the actual troop levels or the widely advertised F-117A deployments - I'd raise a very sceptical eye over any news reports concerning special forces. Frank -- fdunn@cix fdunn@bix 100012,23 CIS Frank Dunn@MacTel "It must be jelly 'cos jam don't shake like that"